So, in your estimation, as a pacifist, you abhor Mandela's violent tactics, and those who occupy the land of others. Those suffering under thugs and bandits who have occupied their lands, are they justified to look to Mandela as a role model in their struggle against oppression? Didn't Mandela engage in banditry as a means to an end? Could it be that Mandela's larger than life persona creates cognitive dissonance, or a double standard? If not, what about all other "freedom fighters" of the world?

So, in your estimation, as a pacifist, you abhor Mandela's violent tactics, and those who occupy the land of others. Those suffering under thugs and bandits who have occupied their lands, are they justified to look to Mandela as a role model in their struggle against oppression? Didn't Mandela engage in banditry as a means to an end? Could it be that Mandela's larger than life persona creates cognitive dissonance, or a double standard? If not, what about all other "freedom fighters" of the world?

I am against all violence, but I realize there is a difference between defensive violence and aggressive violence- which in my opinion, includes occupation. Mandela engaged in defensive violence. The leaders I cited in my original post engage in aggressive violence.

I am against violence committed for any reason, but would draw a distinction between a Nazi soldier and a resistance fighter. I would also draw a distinction between a Hamas or PKK member who dies repelling a military incursion into his homeland, and an Israeli or Turkish soldier who is taking part in the assault.

I can see why Palestinians and Kurds and West Papuans and Chechens and others under occupation would see in Mandela a role model in their struggle. Hopefully in their struggle they will not engage in violence but if they do, the violence will not target the innocent.

Shouldn't I be surprised that you adopt a nuanced approach to organizations such as those mentioned above, however you seem unwilling to grant the same to states who engage in aggression? Some may get the impression that you are an anarchist.

You said, ..."Chechens and others under occupation would see in Mandela a role model in their struggle. Hopefully in their struggle they will not engage in violence but if they do, the violence will not target the innocent."

Violence that doesn't touch the innocent (women, children, elderly, sick) is truly an oxymoron. Would you deem their loss in life, property and security as necessary (collateral damage) for the overall objective?

Shouldn't I be surprised that you adopt a nuanced approach to organizations such as those mentioned above, however you seem unwilling to grant the same to states who engage in aggression? Some may get the impression that you are an anarchist.

The armed groups I mentioned are not occupying anyone else's land, and they were formed as a response to the occupation and mistreatment of their peoples. The states listed above engage in occupying the lands of others and mistreating people in their own countries.

I am not an anarchist.

Originally posted by abuayisha

You said, ..."Chechens and others under occupation would see in Mandela a role model in their struggle. Hopefully in their struggle they will not engage in violence but if they do, the violence will not target the innocent."

Violence that doesn't touch the innocent (women, children, elderly, sick) is truly an oxymoron. Would you deem their loss in life, property and security as necessary (collateral damage) for the overall objective?

I never defend and never have defended or excused violence against civilians. Targeting civilians is the lowest form of violence, and is never justified under any circumstances, or for any reason.

While I sympathize with the PKK and Hamas and Chechen and West Papuan guerrillas who are fighting to free their people from occupation and I recognize that the ones who are to blame for these conflicts are the governments of Turkey and Iran and Israel and Russia and Indonesia, whenever the groups mentioned target civilians they engage in cruel and unjustified and cowardly violence, like their oppressors.

As a Christian who takes the Bible literally, I believe that the only response that God allows to violence and injustice is peaceful resistance- turning the other cheek and carrying the occupying soldiers load for example are acts of civil disobedience. We need to oppose evil, but we cannot do it with hate. We need to love our enemies, even as we work against their actions.

Therefore, I do not support any form of violence or military action. However, I draw a distinction between violence perpetrated in self-defence against other armed enemies, and violence perpetrated for any reason against civilians.

Yeah, your points are well taken, however, and unfortunately, of the groups you've mentioned, have indeed involved themselves in violence/terrorism against civilians. The video below attempts to draw a distinction between violence and terrorism...

Yeah, your points are well taken, however, and unfortunately, of the groups you've mentioned, have indeed involved themselves in violence/terrorism against civilians. The video below attempts to draw a distinction between violence and terrorism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EEvGVvmDSs&feature=youtu.be

Salaam Alaikum and thank you for sharing the video. I think we agree on everything in this discussion.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.